San Francisco’s latest effort to draw new boundaries for its city supervisor districts has been roiled by accusations of political bias, particularly from progressives who are alarmed by what they view as a moderate power grab.
Defenders of the task force have stressed that its members have to balance a range of difficult variables, including — first and foremost — the need to make districts similarly sized in population while trying to keep neighborhoods and communities with shared interests together as much as possible.
They also say the task force has no choice but to overhaul boundaries, given where San Francisco has — and hasn’t — built new housing over the last decade.
“It’s impossible to do this in a way that pleases everybody,” Jason McDaniel, an associate political science professor at San Francisco State University, said of the redistricting process.
McDaniel saw nothing to justify claims of gerrymandering pushed by some supervisors and activists. Instead, he pointed to San Francisco’s uneven development patterns that require the task force to make major adjustments to districts on the east and southeast side of the city.
“The reason why is because of all the population change,” McDaniel said of the district boundary shakeup. “Where have we put most of the new housing? It’s in the districts where a lot of the population has grown in the last 10 years.”
Mike Chen, a volunteer organizer with the pro-housing group SF YIMBY, made similar points in a Chronicle op-ed this week, writing that unbalanced district populations had occurred because “five decades of housing policy have channeled population growth away from western neighborhoods and toward the eastern ones.”
The task force’s aim is to try to get each district as close as possible to a target population of nearly 80,000 people. Currently, District 6 — which includes the Tenderloin and SoMa — is furthest from that goal, exceeding it by about 30% due to a series of housing developments built between the 2010 and 2020 censuses. Similarly, District 10 — which includes Bayview-Hunters Point, Potrero Hill and the Dogpatch — is about 9% above the target population.
“Nobody disputes the fact that Districts 6 and 10 grew, and that they have to shrink in population and that a lot of the lines have to be adjusted. This is just a fact,” said progressive District 3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin.
But the task force went too far in responding to those population changes, Peskin said, noting that the group has considered changing the boundaries of District 5 so much that more than half of those who currently live there would be moved into a different district. He saw such an extreme change as evidence of attempted gerrymandering.
“This is not about progressive versus moderate,” Peskin said. “This is about the fundamentals of representative electoral democracy.”
One of Peskin’s staffers, Lee Hepner, saw validation to progressive concerns about the task force in a Wednesday email that he shared on Twitter and with the Chronicle.
“Hello moderate San Franciscans,” read the message. “For the 1st time in the 40 years that I’ve lived in the City, there is a large coordinated centrist/moderate movement to take on Progressive power.”
The message, which appeared to be from housing developer Nick Podell, went on to reference his involvement with a group backing the recall of District Attorney Chesa Boudin. Podell could not be reached for comment Friday.
The author then indicated he wanted to see more moderate candidates elected to the Board of Supervisors, which is currently dominated by progressives. And he saw the Redistricting Task Force — comprised of nine volunteers who redraw the city’s 11 supervisor districts to account for the last 10 years of population growth — as an opportunity.
“We are in the final week of the Redistricting process and it is going better than I could have ever dreamed,” the message said, referencing a draft map that he thought would flip multiple districts to benefit moderates over progressives.
It’s not clear exactly how many people received the email.
Hepner cited the message as evidence of “partisan gerrymandering” — referring to intentional manipulation of district lines to favor certain politicians or parties — and “the definition of voter suppression.”
Drama surrounding the redistricting process escalated to its highest point this week as the task force prepared to approve a final draft map Saturday and officially put new boundaries in place before April 15.
Various progressive groups and residents outraged at the way their neighborhoods might be moved into different districts spoke out in a flood of public comments and rallies. Then, the San Francisco Elections Commission moved to consider removing its three appointees to the Redistricting Task Force — which prompted a backlash of its own, including from Mayor London Breed and some supervisors.
Several observers said the process was uglier and more political than in the recent past and one expert said some of the troubles sprung from how the task was conducted.
David Ho, a San Francisco political consultant, blamed the task force’s troubles partly on what he saw as “very erratic” leadership throughout City Hall that failed to ensure the process launched smoothly. The task force’s nine members are appointed in equal numbers by the mayor, Board of Supervisors and elections commission.
“The Redistricting Task Force should not be about politics and labels and progressive versus moderate ideology,” Ho said. “It sounds like this process has been overly politicized. This should be about data and numbers and respect for traditional neighborhood boundaries. … This whole process has been a mess.”
J.D. Morris is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jd.morris@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @thejdmorris
